Slashdot Mirror
VidAngel Keeps Streaming Videos, Defying Movie Studios and a US Judge (deseretnews.com)
The Deseret News reports that Hollywood studios "aren't happy with VidAngel, saying in a statement Wednesday that the Utah-based streaming service 'continues to illegally stream our content without a license and is expanding its infringement by adding new titles' despite a judge's recent injunction." Or, as VidAngel explains on their blog, "We say we're legal. Disney says we're pirates." Long-time Slashdot reader goombah99 writes:
VidAngel...will edit any major movie of objectionable content exactly as you request (and no more than you request), then stream it to you for $1. Such bowdlerizing and DVD streaming services are expressly written into section 110 of Title 17, the copyright act (paragraph 11 added in the 2005 Family Viewing act). Therefore both aspects that the studios are suing over, the streaming of a DVD and the editing of it by a third party, is plainly legal... There's a petition to save this act from encroachment [signed by more than 30,000 families].
In just five days in October, VidAngel raised $10.1 million in a "mini-IPO" -- reportedly the fastest one ever -- to fund their ongoing fight against the movie studios. VidAngel CEO Neal Harmon says "We'll take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. We're happy to pay more. We're happy to rent more. We're happy to pay the prices the studios want us to pay. Just give us filtering."
In just five days in October, VidAngel raised $10.1 million in a "mini-IPO" -- reportedly the fastest one ever -- to fund their ongoing fight against the movie studios. VidAngel CEO Neal Harmon says "We'll take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. We're happy to pay more. We're happy to rent more. We're happy to pay the prices the studios want us to pay. Just give us filtering."
Dear VidAngel,
I have the following video I would like you to edit, then stream to me. Could you please cut off the dialog parts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Had to research:
VidAngel buys a bunch of DVDs.
VidAngel sells you the DVD stream for 20 bucks (this can't be legal but ok).
You then watch the stream and sell it back to VidStream for 19 bucks (or less, based on a ticking clock)
Again, I don't see how buying one physical disk allows you to stream that movie to an infinite amount of people, but here we are. They have no shot of winning in court.
Just a bunch of morons, the law is too undefined to say it's not copyright infringement if the owner of the "legally obtained" motion picture isn't the "private household" using the copy. They'll lose, all the money will go to the lawyers, because "of course" they have a "strong case" that requires equally strong legal fees and a very long drawn out court battle and that'll be 10+ million dollars please and thank you. Of course it wouldn't matter if the words were clearly in favor of the defendant here and done so on a stone tablet from lightning strikes; their opponent is Disney, the corporation able to make entire laws appear out of thin air because they deem it to be so (cough copyright extensions cough).
Hate to say, they will not win. Once that 10 mil is gone to paychecks and lawyers, there will be some people looking for work...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
This is censorship in the same way Slashdot moderation is censorship. While it technically meets the definition, I don't see any harm here. It's not much different than simply choosing to look away and mute the volume when there's content you don't want to see or hear. The customers are in full control of what gets removed and what doesn't. Where censorship can become a problem is when authority decides to make it impossible or extremely difficult to view content. The service being offered here really isn't any different than moderating posts and letting the user decide whether to browse unfiltered at -1 or read at some higher threshold that removes some potentially objectionable content.
Their legal argument is better than I expected it to be. However, there are two big problems with their argument:
As another commenter pointed out, they claim to sell the video for $20, then immediately buy it back for $19, they also stream it the customer (bandwidth costs) and edit it (server farm / cpu costs). It's quite obvious they're charging $1 to stream it to you, the "sell it for $20 and buy it back for $19" is a gimmick, it's bullshit. Nobody is buying movies from them, they're paying $1 to stream it.
Their fair use argument regarding DMCA is bogus. They claim that bleeping some words is "transformative", but the relevant portion of the fair use test is if they transform it to a different type of work that DOES NOT COMPETE with the protected work. For example, one may make a sculpture from CDs, or use book pages as wallpaper - nobody is going to buy your wallpaper *instead of* the original book. People WILL choose to stream from Vidangel *instead of* an authorized source such as Netflix or Amazon.
Lastly, the transformative aspect is only *one* part of the four-prong test for fair use. Other considerations include "is it commercial?" They are indeed selling the streaming, doing it commercially, so on that basis it's unlikely to be fair use. It's not educational, etc. It really doesn't match the definition of fair use well.
Almost like if you requested a video be censored of something, and then they gave you the censored version. You know, exactly what they are doing.
Their customer base is largely families who want to watch stuff but want certain bits they consider inappropriate jammed into their ears or eyes or presented to their kids. NOBODY is censoring anything to prevent YOU from seeing/hearing it. NOBODY is preventing you from consuming the content you want. They are just helping people who want 90% of something from being forced to absorb the other 10%.
If you order a meal at a fancy eatery because you like the meal, but it has green olives which you hate, do you have the right to simply remove the green olives before consuming the meal, or is it a terrible offense against civilization and the artistry of the chef? You're not removing the olives from anybody else's plate. You're not even inconveniencing the chef directly by asking him to remove the olives, nor are you asking him to remove olives from his recipe or to keep them out of anyone else's serving. Now, if this is ok, then why is it bad if you ask a third party to discreetly remove the olives from your meal for you, because they're better at it than you are and they'll even do it for you before you sit down to eat the meal? That's what's happening here.
Since when did filmmakers get the right to demand that you watch every moment of their films or you may not watch any of the films? People are free to turn away from a TV, or fast forward a video disc, and most on Slashdot support people being able to skip commercials (the HORROR! do you have a right to skip the "artistry" of that latest Viagra ad??)
Reminder: When the film Amadeus hit the big screen, the studio released it without the scene of Mozart's wife being assaulted. It was released on VHS tape years later also without that scene. Years later when released on BluRay, the only version released was the "director's cut" where that scene was added back in. This is one example and far from unique. Was the audience wrong to view the theatrical or VHS releases with the scene removed? Wrong to view the BluRay with the scene? Why was it OK for the studio to cut the sexual scene from the theatrical release, but then presumably wrong for some service now to come along and re-remove that scene for a family who wants to expose their children to the great film and the composer it is about while not exposing them to the actress's nude scene?
Get a life. Live and let live. Watch the media you want to watch, and tolerate others watching (or not) the parts they want (or don't want) to watch.
They already have that, EDL files. I don't know if there is a collection of them available online, though.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I've heard the vulgarity of our entertainment defended with the claim that it reflects society
Considering people use the word 'fuck' whenever they fell like it, as if it's supposed to make them sound edgy, or cool or an adult (it doesn't), considering the recent election and the one candidate who bragged about assaulting women, considering the overall daily actions of people towards others, yes, our entertainment does reflect society quite well.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Since most commenters have not read the legal reference, here is what it says:
"...the following are not infringements of copyright: (11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology."
That's pretty clear. They are allowed to make temporary changes to audio or video content during transmission for private home viewing, provided only that they are modifying an authorized copy.
It sounds to me (IANAL) like they have a very strong case.
Of course, their record keeping needs to be spotless, guaranteeing that they never sell more copies than they have in stock, and that any specific streaming instance can be traced to a specific authorized copy.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
So assuming their legal argument is sound (and it's certainly better than I expected), if I were to request that they edit out just a few irrelevant seconds, and maybe that annoying copyright notice, we're good to go?
Sweet!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Because with out vulgarity or what ever else they are censoring the films then become boring as shit.
Others are charging a lot more than $1 to stream a movie. Sounds like if I define the "objectionable" parts as the end credits that contain no video scenes or even the very objectionable commercials for other movies before the movie starts, (but the nudity and violence and cussing isn't objectionable), then I could get a movie streamed for a buck. Am I missing something here?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You can filter what you want in VidAngel and can be as specific or as broad as you want. The only requirement to their system is that you have to filter at least one thing. The video I watched last night I left everything but a 2 second shot of bare breasts, which wouldn't have contributed to the movie at all.
That's as much censorship as you not watching certain YouTube videos.
The important part here is YOU. YOU decide. YOU and YOU alone say what you want to see and what you don't want to see. I hope you can see the difference, if not, allow me to point it out:
YOU deciding what you get to see: good thing
ANYONE ELSE deciding what you get to see: bad thing
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am sure that, like me, many had never heard of VidAngel. We will be checking it out. Thank you, content owners, for your continuing stupidity.
I've heard the vulgarity of our entertainment defended with the claim that it reflects society - I wonder, then, why those in charge of Hollywood fight so hard against our desire for cleaner entertainment?
Because, why YOU think you're special and righteous in your desire for "no naughty words". The fact is, NO ONE ELSE CARES. Either they like gore and naughty words (like myself) or the just don't care. Your "fight" is one sided, Hollywood is driven by profits, and no matter how important you think you are. The blunt fact is you and those 5 people like you make up a miniscule part of the "viewers" that it is not even worth their time money wise. In fact you're so insignificant, it is not worth their time to put out "edited" versions of popular movies for you. (hint: if they thought for a second they could increase profits, it would exist)
So basically, you thinking their "fighting" against is akin to the Ants in a mound thinking I'm fighting them when my boot lans on them while I walk through the woods.
I was about to post how every prior company that did this died, but apparently not. There are a few still around! OMG! I am buying one, because there's loads of movies I want my kids to see, with a few slight alterations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks and ClearPlay
Here is a Slashdot article about ClearPlay and CleanFlicks. The zdnet article link is dead, so use the wayback machine.
Here is another Slashdot article about ClearPlay
Trilogy Studios Movie Mask looks like it never actually came out.
However, everyone who tries to stream DVD or live TV content gets shut down. Here's a few:
Slashdot on Kaleidescape
Slashdot on Aereo
This service is the result of you "moving the slider"
Those lawyers you mentioned have been arguing about what is and isn't a "bonafide sale" since at least the 1800s. Why? Because it matters. This looks a heck lot more like paying $1 to stream than a bonafide sale.
In general, judges tend to not like smartasses who try to make claims like this that they know, and everybody knows, are bullshit.
This is censorship in the same way Slashdot moderation is censorship. While it technically meets the definition, I don't see any harm here.
Censorship that is an Optional choice made by the person buying and consuming the content, Which they pay extra for, Is actually good censorship.
It's censorship in the same way that AdBlock is censorship. It's censorship outside the control and desires of any 3rd party, including without respect to the wishes or the knowledge by the content creators, distributors, government, etc.
Censorship, under some common definitions, implies that it is imposed. This is not the case here.
It's really hard to guess how this court case will go. Copyright law is vague enough that it could go any way.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's a lot of outrage over ... I'm not exactly sure why you're outraged.
Let's look at the only point you made:
it is not worth their time to put out "edited" versions of popular movies for you.
That's probably true. So what's wrong with allowing a third-party to do something like offering a special player and filters like ClearPlay? Do you also find that objectionable?
If so, I'm curious as to why. It doesn't affect you in any way, so I'm guessing you have some moral reason that you feel you must impose on others.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I'll fight censorship by your side but this isn't censorship.
This isn't SJWs forcing their tastes and opinions on others, they're petitioning to preservce the OPT-IN service. It's post-distribution, the original distro is untouched, the individual gets what they want without compromising everyone else.
Maybe your post was simply lazy can't-RTFS ignorance, but hey, maybe it was cleverly orchestrated, maybe you deliberately posted something thick so everyone (incl myself) would come out and make the distinction.
OnTopic: If there's really such a Family Viewing Act that explicitly protects bowdlerizing, Disney&c's lawyers probably know it and this is probably intimidation/cashbleed tactics.
A judge who doesn't like someone making a comment should be disrobed. They are there to rule on matters of law and not on smartarsery or bullshit. If something is bullshit but legal then the former doesn't matter.
You said it yourself arguments have been made since the 1800s. Why? Because the law isn't clear enough in this matter, and the fact that this is still up for debate and wasn't thrown out with prejudice shows it isn't clearly decided one way or the other.
I am allowed to censor what I see. I can choose, I have that right. You or the studios don't get to force me to watch what I don't want to watch. The first amendment limits the government from censoring. You can't really be that fucking stupid so I assume you're just trolling.
Except for those in the household. While I would certainly censor a 10-year old (No ISIS decapitation movies seems like a good start), what about when they're 18? Aren't they entitled to make their own value judgements?
I'm not against this service, and I fully support them in this fight because every enemy of the studios is another head of the hydra they fight (although not necessarily a friendly head). But I don't share their POV.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
I'd prefer a bowl or a joint instead.
This space unintentionally left blank.
My wife hates gore - I think we'll be trying VidAngel soon.
We all hate him. Suggestion: Don't watch “An Inconvenient Truth” (spoiler: the cause and effect graphs clearly show the effect coming before the cause) or its new sequel and you should be fine.
Awww. But he is super serial. Who else is going to carry on the fight against Manbearpig?
This space unintentionally left blank.
A friend of mine told me about VidAngel a few weeks ago, and my feeling is that they're trying to do a tightrope walk, blindfolded, while wearing ice skates.
Their business model hinges on the sell/resell gimmick that solely exists on a balance sheet. It's shaky ground to stand on.
CleanFlicks lost out because they altered the movies, which either fell under "derivative work" or "CSS decryption", either way not a good idea. They lost in court.
RealNetworks (still a thing, apparently) tried having a product that allowed movies to be ripped to one's own computer, but included more DRM than the original DVD. They lost in court.
Aereo distance-shifted OTA broadcasts, limited to one viewing per antenna, and one antenna per user. They lost in court.
Zediva bought DVD players and DVDs, paired them 1:1, and allowed one user to stream a movie from an available DVD player. They lost in court.
Vidangel is walking a trail blazed by dead bodies, forged by lawyers who have no intention of providing a compromise that reflects reality. Once they get big enough, the MPAA will come after them as well. They might win against Miramax and MAYBE Universal, but once the sleeping Mouse is awakened by their family-friendly edit of Rogue One, I wouldn't bet a counterfeit wooden nickel on them willing that court case - Disney will win on attrition alone.
After all, it is power, not money, that perpetuates this behavior.
Well if they are independent then they CAN make their own value judgements, but until they are the head of their own household, paying their own bills, and feeding their own mouths, guess who get's to call the shots? That's right the provider -- the head of the house hold. Instead of whining and throwing a fit about not getting what you want go out and *earn* freedom; move out of mommy and daddy's basement.
Yes, advertisements are works of art, and they are (rightly) copyright. But blocking or ignoring ads is not the same as altering and redistributing them.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
In reading a Forbes article on VidAngel, they make reference to the 2005 "Family Movie Act" (FMA) that vidangel is using as it's primary defense. The fact that the FMA exists at all is horrible. According to Forbes:
The FMA, as it relates to filtering technology, provides an exemption from copyright infringement for the use of technology in the home that can edit a DVD or an “on-demand’ streaming film on the fly, resulting in a temporary “censored” version of the film. From a copyright standpoint, this simply means that the companies offering the technologies are not required to obtain a license to create the “derivative” censored version of the film.
The frustrating part about this law is that Americans ALREADY had the right to do that. I bought the DVD, I have a license to it, and I can create all the derivative works I want SO LONG AS I DON'T DISTRIBUTE THEM. I am sick of laws saying "You can do X with copyrighted content" because it implies a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. Copyright only affects distribution of a work. I can take any book I have, and cross-out words, then change character names, and insert epithets, and paint pictures in it, and rip pages out. I can take any DVD I want, and I can remove scenes and dub over it all I want. Copyright has nothing to bear on that since I'm not copying it.
The problem is that Americans have allowed organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA to reinterpret copyright law. So now, we don't own those DVDs we license them. And we don't play the video at all, instead we have a license to a key to decrypt them. The MPAA convinced the courts that transferring the video to our monitors is making a copy. Blizzard convinced the courts that loading a video game into the computers memory to play it constitutes a copy. So all of a sudden, copyright law not only says who can distribute works, but how we can enjoy them and what we can and cannot do with them.
Be careful of laws that "grant" you rights you already had. A law that says "You can now criticize the president in public" would just be a disguised way to take that right away from you, by asserting that you didn't have it in the first place and that they had the power to regulate it.
I've heard the vulgarity of our entertainment defended with the claim that it reflects society - I wonder, then, why those in charge of Hollywood fight so hard against our desire for cleaner entertainment?
Because, why YOU think you're special and righteous in your desire for "no naughty words". The fact is, NO ONE ELSE CARES. Either they like gore and naughty words (like myself) or the just don't care. Your "fight" is one sided, Hollywood is driven by profits, and no matter how important you think you are. The blunt fact is you and those 5 people like you make up a miniscule part of the "viewers" that it is not even worth their time money wise. In fact you're so insignificant, it is not worth their time to put out "edited" versions of popular movies for you. (hint: if they thought for a second they could increase profits, it would exist)
So basically, you thinking their "fighting" against is akin to the Ants in a mound thinking I'm fighting them when my boot lans on them while I walk through the woods.
After the tech bubble burst and I lost my job, I had to work in the call center for a studio which produces family friendly entertainment. I was given a list of people "probably interested" in the product, as referred by friends and family. My job was to raise awareness of the company and obtain names of more people to contact. I was not in sales. I didn't stay there for long, but that's beside the point. Your rant brought to mind some of the abuse and misunderstanding I suffered at that position.
That particular company I worked for provided MORE choices for those interested without removing options for those not interested. No one at VidAngel wants to shut down studios or prevent studios from creating PG-13, R, or NC-17 movies. Same goes for the company I worked at. Both provide a service / product they felt was missing / underrepresented in the marketplace. I have my own standards (that I'm not forcing on you). When watching movies alone or with my wife I'm more tolerant of some content than when my 2-year-old is in the room. OTOH, I have walked out of movies when confronted by 10 f-bombs in the first couple minutes.
Blocking an ad from within an overall TV show or from where it belongs on a web page is EXACTLY the same thing. It is excising a bit of (admittedly commercial) artistic content from within an overall work (which is, itself, also commercial artwork) before the viewer of the overall work is forced to watch the part to which he objects.
No, I reaffirm that it is not the same thing. A TV show and the ads it contains are copyright by separate entities. Removing the content of one does not violate the copyright of the other.
It's quite odd that so many people who support snipping out advertisements for their own convenience and/or pleasure are so upset by the idea that somebody else might want some cursing or soft-core pseudo-porn snipped out of content their families will consume. Is there some unwritten rule that says everybody must subject themselves and their kids to unnecessary expletives, over-the-top violence,and/or simulated sex and nudity? Why must people subject themselves and their kids to these things if they prefer not to, yet it's ok to excise an ad for a car or a river cruise? Why are some people so insistent that others (and particularly kids) must be forced to see and hear cursing/sex/violence?
Nobody is saying that an individual, in the privacy of their own home, can't choose to watch or not watch portions of a broadcast. What is at issue here is whether a separate party can alter and then distribute copyright material. Even if that altered copy is streamed to one single individual who requested the alterations, that is still a violation of copyright. Even if the original content is streamed in its entirety and the naughty bits are skipped over at the receiving end, that is still a violation of copyright. Yes yes, I know that VidAngel says they can do this per the Family Viewing Act. I would argue that they cannot, and I think the courts will ultimately come to that conclusion as well.
Content-creators have supplied PG-versions of their products for sometime. They can do this because it's their content, not VidAngel's. They have a vested interest in assuring that any alterations to their artistic work does not compromise their expression. They rightly do not want some other entity to distribute versions of their content that are edited without their approval.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
It's really hard to guess how this court case will go. Copyright law is vague enough that it could go any way.
God is on the side with the largest legal budget.
Look, movie makers have the right to put whatever they want into a movie.
Viewers have the right to only allow certain portions of a movie into their home.
Vid Angel is providing a service that joins those two features.
It allows personal choice censorship, as opposed to government mandated censorship.
It increases sales of content that some groups otherwise would not purchase.
The movie companies make great movies.
My preference is that Vid Angel shouldn't have to exist.
The DVD/Stream technology exists to provide a movie in such a way that each DVD/Stream could have a PG, PG-13, or R option, or even far more granular options. In fact, it is freaking easy to develop.
It is time for Movie companies to meet the demand themselves and start doing this.
If the Movie companies don't meet this demand, then they can shut-up and get out of the way of the companies who do.
I hate censorship, because you are not getting the information in the format that the authors intended. That's why I never used blockbuster, a huge source of censorship and why movie producers made 2 DVD's, one for blockbuster (and those who got stuck with a censored copy) and another for the rest of us who prefer reality and truth.
If you cannot handle the content, then you do not deserve to see it.
Perhaps removing the end credits and the FBI warning screen would be enough editing?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?